---- datatemplateentry publication ---- template : publications:display_template title : Impact of mobility reduction on COVID-19 mortality: absence of evidence might be due to methodological issues date_date : 2021-12-07 template : publications:display_template authors_ : Gideon Meyerowitz‐Katz, Lonni Besançon, Antoine Flahault, [[people:raphael_wimmer|Raphael Wimmer]] epub_url : https://epub.uni-regensburg.de/51157/ publisher_url : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-84092-1 pdf_url : https://epub.uni-regensburg.de/51157/1/s41598-021-02461-2.pdf bibtex_url : https://epub.uni-regensburg.de/cgi/export/eprint/51157/BibTeX/epub-eprint-51157.bib video_url : doi : 10.5283/epub.51157 photo_img : :publications:impact_of_mobility_reduction_on_covid-19_mortality:figure_1_hypothetical_countries.png short-description : "Matters Arising" response to: R.F. Savaris, G. Pumi, J. Dalzochio & R. Kunst (2021) [Stay-at-home policy is a case of exception fallacy: an internet-based ecological study](https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-84092-1). abstract : Identifying the impact of Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions (NPIs) against COVID-19 has been an important topic throughout the pandemic. It is, in many ways, one of the most difficult scientific challenges facing the research community, as these interventions are often implemented in parallel, and it is challenging to disentangle how various methods of avoiding infection may have impacted case and death rates across the world. To this vital question, we read with interest the paper written by Savaris et al. entitled “Stay-at-home policy is a case of exceptional fallacy: an internet-based ecological study”1. The authors found no evidence that COVID-19 deaths were reduced by more people staying at home in early 2020. However, we believe that several key deficiencies within the methodology make their conclusions unsupported. published-in : Scientific Reports project : ----